A Theoretical Framework for Studying the Phenomenon of Gaslighting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that, over time, causes a victim to doubt their sense of reality, often leading to a loss of agency and emotional and mental instability. Currently, mechanistic explanations for gaslighting are rooted in unfalsifiable psychodynamic theory. We propose a theoretical framework that draws upon prediction error minimization, symbolic interactionism, attachment theory, self-verification theory, and shared reality theory to illustrate the cognitive mechanisms that allow gaslighting to occur. We hypothesize that gaslighting depends on normative social-cognitive mechanisms operating in atypical social situations. Our model assumes that (close) relationships fulfill important epistemic needs-close others shape and verify our self-views and our experience of the world. This privileged position of close others is what gives gaslighters the epistemic leverage required for gaslighting to be effective. We then apply our theoretical framework to the cycle of gaslighting and conclude by distinguishing gaslighting from other related phenomena.Public AbstractGaslighting is a type of emotional abuse where someone manipulates another person into doubting their own sense of reality. Psychology lacks clear scientific explanations for how this abuse makes people feel like they're losing touch with what's real. In this report, we look at research from brain science and social psychology to explain what might be going on inside the minds of people who experience gaslighting. Our explanation focuses on how people learn from their experiences, and we also include ideas about how relationships and social situations can shape behavior. The goal is to offer a scientific explanation of gaslighting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".